Re: Consensus call: should the Version Negotiation update RFC 9000?

[Matt Joras <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

To summarize the outcome, while the usage of the "Updates" tag across the
IETF is generally not very consistent, the chairs believe that there is
consensus for adding the "Updates" tag for RFC 8999, but not for RFC 9000,
as the implications and precedent-setting of the latter are not as clear.

Best,
Matt Joras
On behalf of the QUIC WG Chairs

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 3:48 PM Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Gentle reminder that this call is still running for a few more days.
> Please comment if you have an opinion.
>
> Cheers
> Lucas
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Sept 2022, 00:49 Lucas Pardue, <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello QUIC WG,
>>
>> As part of the AD review of the Version Negotiation draft [1], the
>> question was raised about whether it should update RFC 9000; see issue #115
>> [2]. As a reminder, an RFC can include an "Updates" tag that refers to
>> another target RFC, the target in turn will receive an "Updated by" tag.
>>
>> Generally, the use of and meaning of the Updates tag can be ambiguous.
>> There is no blanket rule to determine if an Updates tag is required for
>> RFCs that extend QUIC. For example, we didn't add one for QUIC bit grease
>> [3].
>>
>> Our responsible AD, Zahed, has asked for a consensus call to determine
>> whether the Version Negotiation draft should include an Updates tag or not.
>> This is the start of a two week consensus call, it will conclude on
>> 2022-09-24, End of Day, Anywhere on Earth.
>>
>> Please respond on the issue directly [2], or in response to this email.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lucas
>> On behalf of the QUIC WG Chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] -
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-09
>> [2] - https://github.com/quicwg/version-negotiation/issues/115
>> [3] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9287.html
>>
>